ex landlord advertising house for rental!

burkey2k0

Muahahaha wrote: »

I am not sure if I understand you here.

If a property is registered with the RTB then yes, you can be pretty sure that the property is rented out to someone.

Landlords have to pay a fee to the RTB to register the property so I cannot think of any reason why they would do this unless they are renting it. They have to register it within one month of a lease being signed with the tenant so the registration comes after the actual renting of the property and not before it.

You could indeed have a situation where a property is registered but the tenants have moved out and now the property is lying empty. I would think this would be very unusual as the landlord would be still paying his mortgage on an empty property.

If you've ever had the displeasure of having to look through the register for any reason, you'd understand unfortunately.
It's in an absolute state. Full of typos and entry errors making it almost impossible to find certain addresses. And also not updated adequately to get an accurate listing of lettings as they stand, including if a property should be taken off or 'unregistered'.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

I am not sure if I understand you here.

If a property is registered with the RTB then yes, you can be pretty sure that the property is rented out to someone.

Landlords have to pay a fee to the RTB to register the property so I cannot think of any reason why they would do this unless they are renting it. They have to register it within one month of a lease being signed with the tenant so the registration comes after the actual renting of the property and not before it.

You could indeed have a situation where a property is registered but the tenants have moved out and now the property is lying empty. I would think this would be very unusual as the landlord would be still paying his mortgage on an empty property.

I think he means it might be rented but its still the original registration that's up on the website or he could even have sold it or moved in himself but never notifed the RTB.

Most places I lived were not registered (and it didn't bother me) but one place that was registered was registered at some point in the past but by the time I left the people renting rooms there and totally changed but it was the original registration (it had to be as the LL didn't ask for the details of me or any of the many people who moved in or out which would be requried to register).

Samuel T. Cogley

BarryD2 wrote: »

As good an example as any why part time landlords should be driven out of the business in this country. Unlikely that anyone running property letting as a full time business would abuse tenants like this.

I love it when I see comments like this. The vast majority of LL's are small time and obey all the laws/tax requirements. If you reckon Ireland will be a better place with massive REITs owning all the property you're extremely naive. REITs and large LL's would simply lobby and get the laws changed to suit them, not only that they will be structured in such a way to avoid tax.

Be careful what you wish for, you may be in the process of getting it.

BarryD2

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for, you may be in the process of getting it.

Stability of supply & tenure, certainty & predictability are what people renting require. I believe that larger institutional investors are in a better position to deliver this.

Whereas our market here has a good sprinkling of people acquiring property (often competing with people trying to buy a home) with the idea of getting the tenant to pay most of the mortgage, all the better if the rent is paid in cash to avoid tax. With a view to churning it in a few years when values rise and/or some deluded idea that it's a pension. These 'investors' are not interested in the long term, in stability of supply & tenure, certainty & predictability. Many, some but not all seem quite happy to treat tenants as disposable cash machines that can be moved on as required.

coffee_cake

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is that actually the case ? so if somebody sells me a student slum that was being rented for silly low money and I paint it, clean it up and put in a new kitchen and new furniture I can't turn round and just rent that out at market rate because of the last owner ?

if true then that rule needs to go fast, no wonder landlords are leaving.

My understanding is that genuine renovations are ok for rent increase.
buying the slum and renting it out with no changes = no rent changes

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I love it when I see comments like this. The vast majority of LL's are small time and obey all the laws/tax requirements. If you reckon Ireland will be a better place with massive REITs owning all the property you're extremely naive. REITs and large LL's would simply lobby and get the laws changed to suit them, not only that they will be structured in such a way to avoid tax.

Be careful what you wish for, you may be in the process of getting it.

+1
One of the under-reported parts of Donald Trump's tax reform which was recently signed in the US- is debt can no longer be treated purely as a cost in the US. The Irish tax authorities are playing catch-up on what seems like a bit of a no-brainer- but as it stands- the manner in which the REITs are structured- on pillars of debt- insulates them from ever generating a taxable income in an Irish context.

The average Irish landlord- has a marginal tax rate of 50-53% (including PRSI, USC and other taxes and charges). The average REIT operating in Ireland- has an effective tax rate of 2.8%......... The landlords and the tenants are subsidising the REITs to a remarkable extent.

Another twist on this- is a certain US based REIT- who loaned their Irish branch the funds to buy two developments and commence development on others- at an interest rate of 16.5% This means- the cost of funding these developments- is a straight 16.5% of the principle lent to the Irish entity. Its a remarkable way of insulating the REIT from paying Irish tax.

This is also how the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund- set up and funded an Irish company to purchase the National Lottery. And its how Eircom changed hands so many times- loading it with debt. And its how Toys-R-Us in the US and elsewhere- sank. Debt to shelter the company from tax. However- when the debt reaches a certain level- it doesn't matter whether or not the company is sheltered from debt- it makes sense to deliberately let it fail.

Picture some of the bigger REITs in Ireland failing- and yet another Vulture fund swooping in and mopping up their assets at firesale prices............

Get the picture- be very careful what you wish for- you just might get it...........

The_Conductor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is that actually the case ? so if somebody sells me a student slum that was being rented for silly low money and I paint it, clean it up and put in a new kitchen and new furniture I can't turn round and just rent that out at market rate because of the last owner ?

if true then that rule needs to go fast, no wonder landlords are leaving.

Correct.
The Minister issued 'rules' (I've put it in italics- because its more guidelines than rules- and at that its wooly as hell).
Essentially- you have to conduct serious work- possibly of a structural nature- that changes the floor area of a property or adds a bedroom or otherwise significantly changes the characteristics of the property- and you have to advise the outgoing tenant of who the contractor is and the nature of the works- for it to be considered valid (and the outgoing tenant has 28 days in which to challenge the notice- at which point you have RTB hell for up to 2 years- before they exhaust all their processes and procedures relating to the renovation of the property).

A new kitchen or bathroom- does not satisfy the rules under the Minister's 'guidelines' (which are sufficiently waffly- that you'd have to be a bit senile not to figure how to get around it).

coffee_cake

The_Conductor wrote: »

Correct.
The Minister issued 'rules' (I've put it in italics- because its more guidelines than rules- and at that its wooly as hell).
Essentially- you have to conduct serious work- possibly of a structural nature- that changes the floor area of a property or adds a bedroom or otherwise significantly changes the characteristics of the property- and you have to advise the outgoing tenant of who the contractor is and the nature of the works- for it to be considered valid (and the outgoing tenant has 28 days in which to challenge the notice- at which point you have RTB hell for up to 2 years- before they exhaust all their processes and procedures relating to the renovation of the property).

A new kitchen or bathroom- does not satisfy the rules under the Minister's 'guidelines' (which are sufficiently waffly- that you'd have to be a bit senile not to figure how to get around it).

a new kitchen doesn't count??? That's maaaad. Seriously

The_Conductor

bluewolf wrote: »

a new kitchen doesn't count??? That's maaaad. Seriously

I agree- a new kitchen- a new bathroom- or indeed, taking out all the windows and putting in double glazing- do not count.

To be brutally honest- you'd need to be a bit insane to consider becoming a landlord in this country- and the only thing keeping the number of rental properties where they are- are a limited number of large scale landlords (both REITs and Housing Associations) adding units to their stocks.

The 2017 RTB Annual Report (which isn't due until some time after July)- is going to make very interesting reading.

A kitchen, bathroom, retiling a floor, putting in insulation or double glazing, a new heating system etc etc etc- none of them count.

What some owners of apartments etc have been doing- is approaching the owners of neighbouring units- to see if they'll sell at a reasonable price- and knocking two small units into one larger unit- quenching the rent associated with the property- and selling the 'unit' possibly with a dividing door- before the Management Company have copped what they're doing. There are a number of cases up for hearings featuring this at present.......... As for small scale landlords with houses etc- they're royally screwed- their best bet is to sell- take whatever they can get in the current inflated market- and get out of business in as organised a manner as possible........

The sector has been destroyed- the logical thing for small scale landlords to do- is to lock in the inflated prices they can get for their properties ASAP (preferably before interest rates go up- which is going to knock a lump out of the market).

Bob24

bluewolf wrote: »

a new kitchen doesn't count??? That's maaaad. Seriously

How stupid this is is that one the one hand the official guideline is mad (as you said), but on the other hand there is no way to properly monitor/enforce it so many landlords are getting away with a fresh lick of pain.

It would not be perfect, but maybe it should be based on how much is spent on renovations. Anything above 10 or 15k would be considered major (it would be enough for a new kitchen and bathroom which clearly changes the rental value fo a dated property).

katy39

Keep us posted OP if you decide to report this as it would be interesting to see how this pans out .

rossmores

Bob24 wrote: »

bluewolf wrote: »

a new kitchen doesn't count??? That's maaaad. Seriously

How stupid this is is that one the one hand the official guideline is mad (as you said), but on the other hand there is no way to properly monitor/enforce it so many landlords are getting away with a fresh lick of pain.

It would not be perfect, but maybe it should be based on how much is spent on renovations. Anything above 10 or 15k would be considered major (it would be enough for a new kitchen and bathroom which clearly changes the rental value fo a dated property).

So I changed a heater in a bedroom it had a €25 wall heater with a new €400 eco-friendly unit.
Also put in a new kitchen and bathroom
And have a new tenant I now get market rate
Job done

amcalester

rossmores wrote: »

So I changed a heater in a bedroom it had a €25 wall heater with a new €400 eco-friendly unit.
Also put in a new kitchen and bathroom
And have a new tenant I now get market rate
Job done

Did anyone assess the work done and confirm that you could now charge market rent?

I don't begrudge you it by the way, I'm just curious.

It seems to me that you can't be sure that what you've done is legal unless someone makes a complaint to the RTB which is a crazy way to expect businesses to operate.

Bob24

rossmores wrote: »

So I changed a heater in a bedroom it had a €25 wall heater with a new €400 eco-friendly unit.
Also put in a new kitchen and bathroom
And have a new tenant I now get market rate
Job done

No with the latest rules you can’t.

But where I think there is an issue with the published guidelines is let’s say if the previous kitchen and bathroom in a place were old and rubbish and the landlord spent 15k to put nice brand new ones, it would makes sense for them to increase the rent as the property has became significantly nicer which obviously changes its rental value.

The problem I see with preventing them to do so is that if you are not allowed to increase your rent following that 15k investment in a property, you have absolutely no incentive to renovate the property - ever - as long as you find people to rent it. So overtime it will decrease the average quality of rented housing in high demand areas as given the current market even properties which would badly require refurbishement will find tenants at the regulated prices.

rossmores

I looked at the guideline as did my architect it as woolly a wensleydale sheep.

rossmores

a wensleydale sheep

zell12

rossmores wrote: »

a wensleydale sheep

Hubba hubba!

theteal

rossmores wrote: »

picture of fluffy sheep

Thanks for the pic because the reference was completely lost, seriously

stargazer 68

Just going to jump on this thread for a ?. Moved out of my rented house - I gave notice, got deposit back etc - all above board. However it is now up for rent for almost 50% more than what I was paying - RPZ I'm pretty sure.

Can he put the rent up by that much - he hasn't done a thing to it or is it as its a new tenancy so it doesn't matter? The photos show the place exactly how I left it! Now I know it's none of my business - I've left etc but just curious.

Seth Brundle

Dovies wrote: »

Just going to jump on this thread for a ?. Moved out of my rented house - I gave notice, got deposit back etc - all above board. However it is now up for rent for almost 50% more than what I was paying - RPZ I'm pretty sure.

Can he put the rent up by that much - he hasn't done a thing to it or is it as its a new tenancy so it doesn't matter? The photos show the place exactly how I left it! Now I know it's none of my business - I've left etc but just curious.

Without carrying out significant renovations, I don't think they can up the rent that much.
Call into the new tenants in a few weeks and let them know that they should look for a rent reduction!

Graham

kbannon wrote: »

Without carrying out significant renovations, I don't think they can up the rent that much.
Call into the new tenants in a few weeks and let them know that they should look for a rent reduction!

Isn't it a significant change in the nature of the property rather then 'renovations'?

Bob24

Dovies wrote: »

Just going to jump on this thread for a ?. Moved out of my rented house - I gave notice, got deposit back etc - all above board. However it is now up for rent for almost 50% more than what I was paying - RPZ I'm pretty sure.

Can he put the rent up by that much - he hasn't done a thing to it or is it as its a new tenancy so it doesn't matter? The photos show the place exactly how I left it! Now I know it's none of my business - I've left etc but just curious.

If it is RPZ, they are clearly not supposed to increase by 50%. There is a calculator on the PTRB website which will tell you what the maximum figure is depending on your situation.

Now having said that, if the landlord kept your rent cheap because you were a good tentant and it was a win-win situation for everyone, do consider whether you want to create trouble for them now. If landlords get stuck with below market rent / post tenancy problems for rewarding good tenants with cheap rents, they will stop doing it.

Of course if it is not the case and you feel the landlord has been taking the piss, then got after the issue.

stargazer 68

Bob24 wrote: »

If it is RPZ, they are clearly not supposed to increase by 50%. There is a calculator on the PTRB website which will tell you what the maximum figure is depending on your situation.

Now having said that, if the landlord kept your rent cheap because you were a good tentant and it was a win-win situation for everyone, do consider whether you want to create trouble for them now. If landlords get stuck with below market rent / post tenancy problems for rewarding good tenants with cheap rents, they will stop doing it.

Of course if it is not the case and you feel the landlord has been taking the piss, then got after the issue.

My rent was definitely below the market rate - I was there 12 years. Have absolutely no intention of causing problems for them - they were great landlords. I was just curious if it was a case of a new tenant then the old rent didn't apply.

TheAnalyst_

Dovies wrote: »

Just going to jump on this thread for a ?. Moved out of my rented house - I gave notice, got deposit back etc - all above board. However it is now up for rent for almost 50% more than what I was paying - RPZ I'm pretty sure.

Can he put the rent up by that much - he hasn't done a thing to it or is it as its a new tenancy so it doesn't matter? The photos show the place exactly how I left it! Now I know it's none of my business - I've left etc but just curious.

Send the new tenants a letter advising them to look for a discount.

Summer In the City

Dovies wrote: »

My rent was definitely below the market rate - I was there 12 years. Have absolutely no intention of causing problems for them - they were great landlords. I was just curious if it was a case of a new tenant then the old rent didn't apply.

I'm in the same boat but I'm not inclined to let the landlord get away with it. If there is current properties coming on the market at a fair price like the scheme is supposed to allow, it should bring prices down as new properties come on the market.

Bob24

Dovies wrote: »

My rent was definitely below the market rate - I was there 12 years. Have absolutely no intention of causing problems for them - they were great landlords. I was just curious if it was a case of a new tenant then the old rent didn't apply.

Yes it does apply to the new tenancy. You can use the calculator to confirm but if I am right, they can apply an increase of 4% per year since they last reviewed your rent.

So if let’s say they last increased your rent in April 2014 and the rent since then has been 1000 euros, the maximum they are allowed to charge a new tenant as per the RPZ rule is 1160 euros (1000 +16%, as they can increase by 4 times 4% sinc the rent was last reviewed 4 years ago).

I assume it is not the case, but it also means that if they had never reviewed your rent in the past 12 years, they would actually be entitled to a 48% increase.

TheAnalyst_

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Send the new tenants a letter advising them to look for a discount.

And end up getting their LL in trouble after he treated them so well? I'm sure they are happy he is making more money to reward him for treating them so well.

Summer In the City

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

And end up getting their LL in trouble after he treated them so well? I'm sure they are happy he is making more money to reward him for treating them so well.

He's also acting illegally. I'd say if a tenant was doing a landlord out of money you wouldn't be saying that.

Browney7

Summer In the City wrote: »

He's also acting illegally. I'd say if a tenant was doing a landlord out of money you wouldn't be saying that.

And you could argue it's unfair on landlords who follow the law and keep the rent at the previously set rent. The whole situation is a mess and will only continue to get worse

Summer In the City

Browney7 wrote: »

And you could argue it's unfair on landlords who follow the law and keep the rent at the previously set rent. The whole situation is a mess and will only continue to get worse

Or you could argue rents are out of control and tenants should stop paying until its sorted. That would be illegal though.

There's at least 3 examples of landlords raising rents when they're not entitled to and a possible illegal eviction in this thread. I agree that it is a complete mess but everyone acting illegally is only going to make it worse.